JoshK

Last night I was reading an account of a Bazooka team engaging a Tiger tank. The zook missed with the first shot, but the Tiger's return fire went high because the tank was climbing over an obstacle and the gunner could not depress the main gun far enough to compensate for the angle of the hull. Luckily for the GIs, no more tank after the next shot. Using the search, I saw that gun depression was discussed in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001867.html and is modeled in CM. In other words, if I am at the apex of steep hill, I could have trouble engaging targets that were at the hill's base do due the lack of gun depression. This got me to thinking. Are main gun elevation limits modeled? For example, are there circumstances were I would only be able to fire on the troops at the top of a nearby ridge with my AA vehicle, but not with a tank main gun? This question was posed before in other threads, but I was unable to find an answer. Only a small detail, but I think we have covered all the big ones ad nauseam. So what about it testers and/or BTS.

Speedy, My post was referring to Western Europe, and I tried not to imply that the same case could be applied to the complex colonial situation. However, one of my primary points was that the powerful idea of self-determination would always cause resistance to foreign occupation. This desire applied equally to those that were under colonial domination, as events following the war demonstrated. However, to French soldiers stationed in Syria, this equation did not apply. Steve, I think we are agreement then. It is possible to construct a hypothetical alternative reality that may have lead to support of Germany. But that such a reality would change the nature of the Nazi regime to such a degree that the invasion of Western Europe would not have taken place in the first place.

Tommi, I totally agree that in the East this question of "liberation" is turned on its head several times over. My god, look at the poor Ukrainians. They actually did, to a large degree, welcome Nazi liberation in June, 1941. After Stalin starved 3 million Kulaks, Hitler could have very conceivably had armed Ukrainian support. However, to adopt the necessary policies would have meant that he wouldn't have been Hitler, and therefore would not have invaded the USSR in the first place. The internal justification for the invasion was to eradicate the Jews, and for living space free of Slavic sub-humans. It is hard to accomplish those two tasks without devastating the occupied population.

There are several points made here that, I believe, are correct. - There was dissatisfaction with pre-war governments, especially France. - There were elements of the occupied countries that were sympathetic to the Nazi's - There were even larger elements of these societies that were willing to "go with the flow" and offer no passive or active resistance to the Nazis. - Both of the above groups could have been enlarged if Nazi occupation was more benevolent. However, I was not really questioning these assumptions. What I was reacting to was the claim that, under different circumstances, there would have been armed resistance to allied liberation troops. It is here that I think that Steve oversold his case. IMHO, few people (even in W. Europe) are cosmopolitan enough not to chafe at armed foreign occupation, no matter how benevolent. It is one thing not to like your government, it is entirely different to welcome foreign domination to the point that you will take arms against your liberator. The only way that this would have happened is if there was nothing to liberate. In other words, if Hitler had said to his newly conquered W. European neighbors - "Whoops, I goofed. I really wanted to kill Russians, but I invaded you instead. I will leave now and let you carry on as you see fit." However, if that had happened, there would have been no need to liberate these countries in the first place. Anything short of that, the large majority of Danes, Dutch, French, etc. wanted self-determination. The allies were the agents of self-determination. To fight them, would have meant that you preferred German occupation to such a degree that you would do something in support of your occupiers (take up arms) that you would not do in defense of your freely elected government. That behavior, I think, would have been absurd.

Steve, I think you may be underestimating the patriotism and morality of our Western European friends. Are you suggesting that if Hitler had been a better person then the people of France, Holland, Belgium, etc. would not have resisted foreign rule, and in fact would have actively resisted liberation? While in the context of current European political and economic integration it is easy to downplay the idea of self-determination, one could make a compelling argument that many countries value the EU because it protects them from indirect German political and economic domination. If this argument is correct, then it is safe to assume that, 45-50 years ago, there would be resistance to direct domination, even if it was more benevolent that what was the case in WW II. [This message has been edited by JoshK (edited 03-14-2000).]

I recall that Ryan stated that it was not a Nebelwurfer, but a new weapon. However, as no details were provided. However, I was under the impression from the book that it was supposed to be a more impressive system, either in shear bulk or perhaps in the rocket's diameter. All in all, somewhat of a mystery.

As an abstraction (if indeed it is one) it only works to a degree. If other officer's should be able to call in artillery, then limiting that function to a FO unit has two distinct disadvantages. First, it is much more difficult to get LOS to a target with only one unit (the FO) as opposed to several (platoon, company, and battalion commanders). Second, if you FO unit is destroyed, then you lose your artillery.

I was reading the online diary "A Platoon Leader In Patton's Army" that John Kettler posted about. The following passage made me think about CM's artillery procedure. "As an aside, artillery was supposed to be directed by a forward observer officer from their troops. I only saw such an officer once. We infantry officers had not been taught in training to direct artillery fire, but we learned on the job and got very good at it as can be observed from Lt. Taylor's success." Is CM's reliance on FO units too restrictive? I do not think that Lt. Bell's account is usual. Think back to Company Commander, perhaps the definitive first-person account of U.S. small-unit infantry combat. This method of calling in artillery seems to have been the de facto SOP of the U.S. I remember a post from a while back that CM had altered the way indirect motor fire was modeled to take this sort of method into account. Should there be a post-release modification to also allow officers to act as FOs (perhaps at diminished capability) for "off-board" dedicated artillery? What do some of our game designers, testers, historians and/or active duty and retired artillery veterans think?

I sort of split the difference here. I do not think that solders should become berserk in response to circumstances and no longer respond to orders. As has been pointed out, while individuals may do this on occasion, an entire unit would not become berserk. However, I do think that units can change their behavioral status beyond alerted, cautious, pinned and panicked in response to specific events. I guess rather than determining which units are fanatic prior to a battle (and based on a % of all units in the same class), I would make this determination on a unit-by-unit basis as event unfold. In addition, you could add gradations, and not just have troops be normal or fanatic. In practical terms, while this may not result in dramatically different game-play, I like the idea of having a more dynamic way of determining if units will respond extraordinary. If one unit in a Riesburg type scenario takes lots of fire, while its compatriots are having an easy go of it, I would argue that they will just grab some cover an wait it out. However, if a whole platoon is pinned down in a house and is facing annihilation, then they can collectively decide that "there are two types of people on this beach" and charge the MG 42 (if I order this) to at least try to get a few Gis out alive or take some Jerrys with them. Yes I am babbling, need coffee…

Shrek- Last name is Kaufman. Peter- Interesting idea to add onto the existing temporary troop status levels in CM. As of now, there are states like cautious, pinned, or panicked. Why not have other troop states like enraged, stoic (maybe reserved for the English army in retreat), courageous, etc. I wonder if this would be of any value for CM2? I like it at least.

OK, here is what I don't get. One, this is only a computer discussion board. This is not real life. I have never met in person a single other person on this board. While I may or not be fond of the content or tone of someone's post, that does not mean I know them. As a matter of practice, I could give a **** about what people who I don't know say. That does not mean I may not find it interesting, funny, annoying, etc. Only that, at the end of the day, I have nothing emotional invested in this board or anything said here. Two, by my own logic I assume that others don't really care much about what I have to say, though I hope it is interesting, informative, funny, etc. Therefore, if I think that someone's discussion board personality is in some way annoying, pompous, immature, etc. the last thing I ever consider doing is giving a ****. Third, if someone here were ever to insult me, please see #1 and #2. In short, I wouldn't give a **** about that either. However, some people here are much more emotionally invested in a discussion board than I would be. Therefore, out of civility and courtesy, is it so much to ask that people make an extra effort to be nice to them. While I could care less if people flame me, some people do care. SO BE NICE or DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL! Its not hard.

First of all, I am sorry that some discussion on this thread turned personal. As Fionn said, I was just trying to have a discussion that did something I find quite interesting - melding historical circumstances with CM gameplay. Fionn simply chose to disagree with my example, with is fine with me. If we all agreed, any discussion on this board would be quite stale. Not being familiar with ASL (a heretic I know - my youthful paper and counter days were spent on operational-level games), I was unfamiliar with " berserk " behavior. From what little I gleaned from this discussion and upon rereading the section in Ryan last night, I would argue that the 3/504 exhibited both types of behavior. They did give into a certain bloodlust that overcame common sense. However, Aacooper's citation of BTS' definition of Fanaticism - no panicking or surrendering - certainly fits the paratroops as well, IMHO. Not panicking under murderous fine and after taking heavy casualties is closely related to charging over open ground in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds. Once they got the German positions, perhaps they went berserk. Again, I am not familiar with ASL. However, it seems that the two are in no ways contradictory.

Fionn, You would know better than I, but from reading the most recent article on the Raider's CM page, it seemed that the fanaticism setting would affect the chances of units (based on experience level) to be fanatic. Therefore, it would safe to assume that adjusting this setting would impact a large number of units. While I like all three of your examples (I remember reading the first one in Clark's Barbarossa and being chilled), do you have any examples of fanaticism displayed by a relatively large percentage of forces involved? Thanks.

No this is not a topic about Madmatt . Instead, I thought it would be interesting for people to post some real life examples of fanaticism displayed by troops in the ETO. This would be useful for scenario designers when they are determining if there should be any increased setting for Fanaticism. Here is one example: On September 20, 1944 the 3rd Battalion of the 504th PIR, followed by 1st Battalion, performed the death-defying feat of crossing the Waal river by assault boat (a feet they had never practiced - one officer told a British colleague of XXX Corps that it was "on the job training) in order to seize the road and rail bridges at Nijmegen, Holland. Having just read A Bridge Too Far, Ryan's account of this battle demonstrated what fanaticism is. While being battered by 88mm, 20mm and MG fire, the paratroops endured the crossing feeling totally helpless. Upon landing, the were enraged by a combination of the deaths of so many of their buddies, a chance to finally fight back, and a sense that they had somehow cheated death, so it became less terrifying. Therefore, in small groups, often lead by enlisted men, they crossed hundreds of meters of open land and literally assaulted a fortress. Often times a single man would assault a position held by five times his number. While I do not have Ryan's book with me, I remember a quote by an officer (may have even been Major Cook, the CO of the 3/504) who said that he had never seen such rage by an entire unit. Any other good examples?

Thanks, Clearer now.

Fionn, Thanks for the quick reply. I get what you are saying, but have a follow-up question. If I want to make a hill that is 285 meters above see level, but only 100 meters above the adjacent terrain, will the map editor allow me to make a 100 meter hill? For example, does each level of elevation correspond to an actual height (e.g., 25 meters per level)? You indicate that this is possible. However, is it explicit in the editor, or does the map maker need to estimate using his or her eye until it looks right? Thanks again, Josh

I did a search on elevation and height, but could not find an answer. Does each level of elevation on the map editor correspond to a height in feet or meters? For instance, if I was trying to recreate a map of an actual battlefield, and the dominate terrain features are Hill 314 and Hill 285, would I be able to easily create hills that were roughly that tall? Thanks in advance to BTS or beta testers for any answers you may have.

One battle that would be great for a movie (or better yet for a CM operation) is Mortain. Here, the 30th infantry division, most spectacularly the 2nd Battalion, 120th Infantry Regiment on Hill 314, held off an attack by elements of the 2nd SS "Panzer Lehr", the 1st SS Panzer "Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler", 116th Panzer, and17th SS Panzergrenadier divisions. Individual heroism abounded. There was also great drama, the GI's growing despair as the last of the radio batteries ran out, the failed attempts at inserting plasma and other medical supplies to the surrounded troops. Their stand also had broader implications, as the German attack fixed them to the area around Mortain, making the Falaise pocket possible. Check out http://www.concentric.net/~cvlv692/page6.htm or read Ambrose's Citizen Solider for more detail.

March 24th, my birthday.

Thanks Fionn, that is great news. I saw such tremendous improvement in CM from an earlier upgrade to my system. I am relived that I will be able to experience the same thrill in large battles. That is, once I get my computer working again. Regards

A question for BTS or beta testers: I currently run the CM demo on a P1 233MMX w/ 64 MB and a Voodoo 3 3000 16MD 3D card. All three demo scenarios run super smooth. My frame rate is very fast. My question is, has anyone tested a battalion sized battle on a system similar to mine? If so, is there any problems crunching numbers or with the frame rate. Thanks and regards, Josh

Yes, I am the only one in the entire CM world who is glad for this. My darkest fear was that I would log on to the board this AM (from work, bad me) and see a demo. Why you ask… Because I blew out my f$%*ing mother board last night, that's why!

While a country has a right to demand that its top generals always perform perfectly, this is not a very realistic expectation. Should it be shocking that that a very professional German military would be able to achieve operational surprise at different occasions through the war? Of course not. Was this, none the less, a huge failure of allied intelligence? Of course. To his credit, Ike immediately saw the offensive for what it was: A short term danger, but also a tremendous opportunity to put an end to any hope that the Germans had for a stalemate on the Western Front. By smashing the most mobile and capable German formations, the Allies had a much easier time come spring.

The raiders new CM web site has an article about the editor. It has a picture of the unit editor that seems to have unit "prices" on it. There will be a full article on this section later. Go to http://wbr.thegamers.net/

It is easy to oversell historical relativism. States do commit genocide. That does not make genocide a normal act that can be explained away by "every one does it." What the U.S. did the native Americans was evil. What the Turks did to the Armenians was evil. What the Germans did to the Jews and Roma was evil. What the Hutus did to the Tutsi was evil. However, that does not mean that each of these regimes is equally illegitimate. Someone (Winston Churchill or Madeline Albright) said that no type of government will ever be perfect, but at least democracy is perfectible. So, while the Turks were killing Armenians, the U.S. was finally giving women the right to vote. While Stalin was starving millions of Ukrainians, the U.S. was embarking on the New Deal While Hitler was murdering millions of Jews and Roma, the U.S. was fighting a two-front war against Nazism and Japanese militarism. Am I overstating my case? Clearly. There are plenty of counter arguments about all of the horrible things that democracies do. My point is, they do far less horrible things than other types of regimes, they are more accountable for those things, and they are much less likely to repeat them.